Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #51
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, June 14 1996         Volume 01 : Number 051

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:08:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  trash, ct'd

> Nope. "Well written" means, "that will produce fun".
> This is a _game_ remember?
	[...]
> Nope. "Useful" means, "that will produce _more_ fun.
	Well, this is just a conflict in the way we think.  I have
different standards from you.  For me "useful" and "well-written" are
separate concepts from fun.  When I look at a new proposal I want it to be
all three.  If it's a repeal of a non-fun rule, I can vote for that, too. 
Or, if it's just saving the game from potential disaster (not fun per se,
but clearly avoiding something that wouldn't be fun), I can vote for that.
	Vacationing rules are necessary to keep the game afloat, I think. 
(an opinion.) Not fun, but definitely useful, and Wayne's new version was
well written, too.
	I wouldn't want to vote solely on fun content.  It would be like
replacing my blood with Jolt (only less lethal).  Besides, I'd have more
fun in a game where we don't have to go back and correct a rule twice
before it makes sense.  We can do the job right the first time and save
all that grief.

> Just in case you weren't kidding:
> "Interpreted as written" means nothing since players interepret the _same_
> rules differently. Therefore there is no unique "interpretation as written".
> That's so incredible anyone could think so, I must assume you where being
> ironic.
	We could argue this for days.  I choose to believe that words 
have meanings, and that there is often one most likely meaning for a 
given sentence.
	It's like those questions on the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test; 
I'm not sure it's common outside the States, but it's a long,
multiple-choice test a student takes with hopes of getting a good enough
score to earn scholarship money from a college) that say "choose the best
answer."  Sure, you can say "I decided to wear a sandal around my neck."
but a scarf would be more comfortable.
	Many people really do object to such questions, saying that some 
people might prefer sandals to scarves as neckwear, and therefore the 
test is discriminatory.  I disagree.
	This argument is unlikely to lead anywhere....

> Since no rule says "make rules according to Mohammed's criterion, he shall
> be judge, he shall be jury; obey to Mohammed", then I am free to make rules
> that you don't like. And if they pass: tough luck.
	This is a little immature, Calvin, really.

> Oh, and I believe I pointed out to you at least once how _your_ rules could
> be more carefully worked.
	Once you sent me a private message trying to make dents in one of
my proposals ("Gadgets").  I responded, explaining why each attack fails. 
The proposal was more or less unassailable.  You made my point for me. 
(See Kelly Martin's tagline on reductio ad absurdium.)

> I mean, sure, deny that if you want.
	*tolerant sigh*

> >> Player willing to abuse any loopholes, real or imaginary, for
> >> personal gains, whatever the risk to the Game or the other players.
> >	I resent that [...]
> Where did you see that this message was about you??? (me, me, me... not the
> usual Mohammed). I never heard you claim to be SC, on the contrary (if I
> remember right, but then I am sure you will correct me).
	I support a strict construction of the rules.
	There.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  But, if that message 
still represents what you think of the SC school of thought... think again.

> So not having
> attacked any entity in the rules, no player can claim "recognition" through
> that entity, therefore... what are you talking about?
	I'll address that in a minute.  Nothing to do with entities.

C> Synonym:
C> New-Age Bureaucrat and Sewer-Politics Utilitarianist in one.
M>	Four slurs in seventy characters!  A record.  Plus you've labeled 
M>me generally clueless, hypocritical, amoral, and careless.  I'm impressed.
> Is that what self-absorbed means? Say, tell me where I said it was about
> _you_?
	I would have said "us", but I can only speak for myself.
	(I think "Sewer-Politics" more or less has to be a slur; I was 
just being cute with the rest--guilty as charged.)

> Don't you like satires? If it has that effect on you, then maybe you
> should ask "why", not lash out.
	*sigh*  Let me give you an analogy.  Suppose I wrote something like
the following... (I certainly don't believe this; it's merely an example.)
	"Some people like the group They Might Be Giants.  Those people are
worthless, scummy, smelly, murderous puddles of camel bile."  A TMBG fan
out there would be perfectly justified in calling the Politeness Moon on
that, even if I chose to be a little more circuitous, as you did.
	Moral:  If you don't want anyone to act insulted, don't go around
insulting people wholesale.

> Maybe? As for "Clueless", nope, never
> thought of you that way. "Hypocritical"... didn't used to think so.
> "Amoral", never though that of you [read Nietsche!]. "Careless", neither.
> I'm certain you know exactly what you are doing.
	Again, it may not have been, in your mind, about me personally.  You 
directly attacked my philosophical beliefs, and through them, me.  So it 
becomes personal.
	I don't mind satire, if it's done with wit and grace.  But it is
still insulting by its very nature.
	Believe it or not, my friend, words have meaning.  When you say
someone applies double standards, that is a charge of hypocrisy.  If by
saying the former you did -not- intend the latter, it is your fault for
implying something you didn't believe, not that of the reader, for taking
the statement for face value.  The same goes for your charges of
cluelessness and amorality.  If you look through your original message,
you will find each implication, I promise.
	I don't mean to be facetious, but if I should not interpret 
anything you say as -meaning- anything in particular, why should I bother 
to read it?

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 01:34:50 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Unintended Consequences of R829

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> >The CotC is now closed. Please send CFJs, but they will be buffered,
> >pending R829.
> 
> This means that there is no way to CFJ on things relating to the process
> of paradox, Constitutional Convention, etc.
> 

I have been pointing out for a while how it must never be impermissible
for CFJs to occur. For those who would like to eliminate "game custom",
here is a chance to try it on for size :)

I do think a precedence argument can be made to keep the CFJs flowing.
(ie, the CFJ rules preceed 829, and it claims no precedence). However,
I disagree with that argument, at least the one I thought of, because of
the keyword "suspended" in R829. Thus there is no conflict. If you see
another, make it, but a submitted CFJ to the effect may not be
distributed (I cannot use the argument submitted therein to violate
R 829).

Malenkai
Neutered Clerk of the Courts

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 01:37:37 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  trash, ct'd

By R115, I call a "Bandwidth Moon" on Mohammed :) (Sorry, its late,
and the CotC is bored).

Malenkai

Mohammed wrote:
> 
> > Nope. "Well written" means, "that will produce fun".
> > This is a _game_ remember?
>         [...]
> > Nope. "Useful" means, "that will produce _more_ fun.
>         Well, this is just a conflict in the way we think.  I have
> different standards from you.  For me "useful" and "well-written" are
> separate concepts from fun.  When I look at a new proposal I want it to be
> all three.  If it's a repeal of a non-fun rule, I can vote for that, too.
> Or, if it's just saving the game from potential disaster (not fun per se,
> but clearly avoiding something that wouldn't be fun), I can vote for that.
>         Vacationing rules are necessary to keep the game afloat, I think.
> (an opinion.) Not fun, but definitely useful, and Wayne's new version was
> well written, too.
>         I wouldn't want to vote solely on fun content.  It would be like
> replacing my blood with Jolt (only less lethal).  Besides, I'd have more
> fun in a game where we don't have to go back and correct a rule twice
> before it makes sense.  We can do the job right the first time and save
> all that grief.
> 
> > Just in case you weren't kidding:
> > "Interpreted as written" means nothing since players interepret the _same_
> > rules differently. Therefore there is no unique "interpretation as written".
> > That's so incredible anyone could think so, I must assume you where being
> > ironic.
>         We could argue this for days.  I choose to believe that words
> have meanings, and that there is often one most likely meaning for a
> given sentence.
>         It's like those questions on the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test;
> I'm not sure it's common outside the States, but it's a long,
> multiple-choice test a student takes with hopes of getting a good enough
> score to earn scholarship money from a college) that say "choose the best
> answer."  Sure, you can say "I decided to wear a sandal around my neck."
> but a scarf would be more comfortable.
>         Many people really do object to such questions, saying that some
> people might prefer sandals to scarves as neckwear, and therefore the
> test is discriminatory.  I disagree.
>         This argument is unlikely to lead anywhere....
> 
> > Since no rule says "make rules according to Mohammed's criterion, he shall
> > be judge, he shall be jury; obey to Mohammed", then I am free to make rules
> > that you don't like. And if they pass: tough luck.
>         This is a little immature, Calvin, really.
> 
> > Oh, and I believe I pointed out to you at least once how _your_ rules could
> > be more carefully worked.
>         Once you sent me a private message trying to make dents in one of
> my proposals ("Gadgets").  I responded, explaining why each attack fails.
> The proposal was more or less unassailable.  You made my point for me.
> (See Kelly Martin's tagline on reductio ad absurdium.)
> 
> > I mean, sure, deny that if you want.
>         *tolerant sigh*
> 
> > >> Player willing to abuse any loopholes, real or imaginary, for
> > >> personal gains, whatever the risk to the Game or the other players.
> > >     I resent that [...]
> > Where did you see that this message was about you??? (me, me, me... not the
> > usual Mohammed). I never heard you claim to be SC, on the contrary (if I
> > remember right, but then I am sure you will correct me).
>         I support a strict construction of the rules.
>         There.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  But, if that message
> still represents what you think of the SC school of thought... think again.
> 
> > So not having
> > attacked any entity in the rules, no player can claim "recognition" through
> > that entity, therefore... what are you talking about?
>         I'll address that in a minute.  Nothing to do with entities.
> 
> C> Synonym:
> C> New-Age Bureaucrat and Sewer-Politics Utilitarianist in one.
> M>      Four slurs in seventy characters!  A record.  Plus you've labeled
> M>me generally clueless, hypocritical, amoral, and careless.  I'm impressed.
> > Is that what self-absorbed means? Say, tell me where I said it was about
> > _you_?
>         I would have said "us", but I can only speak for myself.
>         (I think "Sewer-Politics" more or less has to be a slur; I was
> just being cute with the rest--guilty as charged.)
> 
> > Don't you like satires? If it has that effect on you, then maybe you
> > should ask "why", not lash out.
>         *sigh*  Let me give you an analogy.  Suppose I wrote something like
> the following... (I certainly don't believe this; it's merely an example.)
>         "Some people like the group They Might Be Giants.  Those people are
> worthless, scummy, smelly, murderous puddles of camel bile."  A TMBG fan
> out there would be perfectly justified in calling the Politeness Moon on
> that, even if I chose to be a little more circuitous, as you did.
>         Moral:  If you don't want anyone to act insulted, don't go around
> insulting people wholesale.
> 
> > Maybe? As for "Clueless", nope, never
> > thought of you that way. "Hypocritical"... didn't used to think so.
> > "Amoral", never though that of you [read Nietsche!]. "Careless", neither.
> > I'm certain you know exactly what you are doing.
>         Again, it may not have been, in your mind, about me personally.  You
> directly attacked my philosophical beliefs, and through them, me.  So it
> becomes personal.
>         I don't mind satire, if it's done with wit and grace.  But it is
> still insulting by its very nature.
>         Believe it or not, my friend, words have meaning.  When you say
> someone applies double standards, that is a charge of hypocrisy.  If by
> saying the former you did -not- intend the latter, it is your fault for
> implying something you didn't believe, not that of the reader, for taking
> the statement for face value.  The same goes for your charges of
> cluelessness and amorality.  If you look through your original message,
> you will find each implication, I promise.
>         I don't mean to be facetious, but if I should not interpret
> anything you say as -meaning- anything in particular, why should I bother
> to read it?
> 
> --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:48:44 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: [good] trash, ct'd 

>We can do the job right the first time and save
>all that grief.

Not grief, imho. FuNz!

>	I support a strict construction of the rules.
>	There.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  But, if that message 
>still represents what you think of the SC school of thought... think again.

Ha...
Well, I don't rate very high any organization that actively tells its
members to go out and "exploit", "abuse" loopholes. Or whatever you may want
to call that kind of action. Sure, it's legal. But then it's legal for me to
not like that. It just a question of standards.

Neither do I find a sterilized rule set attractive. See, I quite like
ambiguity and dilemmas. Not always, but more than just a couple is fun. SC
has a few major faults in my mind. Verbosity to ensure some personalized
notion of "correctness" and starving the rule set. By that I mean removing
more than just the fat. I also find disturbing the notion that a few people
are certain _they_ know what's best for the rules. Or _as_ rules for that
matter. Like I've always said, let Acka choose.

Choice is Freedom! There is no Freedom without choice!

Wow. That's a cool war cry. I might even put that as a sig file.
Neat, I always knew 1230am is the best time for inspiration. Yet I'm sure
someone somewhere has already said it. Always like that.

>	*sigh*  Let me give you an analogy.  Suppose I wrote something like
>the following... (I certainly don't believe this; it's merely an example.)
>	"Some people like the group They Might Be Giants.  Those people are
>worthless, scummy, smelly, murderous puddles of camel bile."  A TMBG fan
>out there would be perfectly justified in calling the Politeness Moon on
>that, even if I chose to be a little more circuitous, as you did.
>	Moral:  If you don't want anyone to act insulted, don't go around
>insulting people wholesale.

Wo-ho! You are pretty lucky CPF is on vacation...   ; )

Your example is just a long list of "real" insults. Sure, what I said of SC
could be interpreted as such by (hyper!) sensitive people, but since it is
actually a list of problems, those people who feel "aligned" to them should
prove them wrong, maybe. It's possible with the satire I gave, it's not
possible to argue with "smelly". And while TMBG fans exist, there is no
recognized entity or list of SCs. So it's a legally empty set.

>	Again, it may not have been, in your mind, about me personally.  You 
>directly attacked my philosophical beliefs, and through them, me.  So it 
>becomes personal.
>	I don't mind satire, if it's done with wit and grace.  But it is
>still insulting by its very nature.

Yup, it is by definition. I didn't really think anyone would be so bold as
to actively claim SC as their personal set of values mind you.

>	Believe it or not, my friend, words have meaning.  When you say
>someone applies double standards, that is a charge of hypocrisy.  If by
>saying the former you did -not- intend the latter, it is your fault for
>implying something you didn't believe, not that of the reader, for taking
>the statement for face value. 

Yes, that is true. However, I do believe there are serious problems with SC,
as I mention above. I am not being hypocritical, just broad in my attack.   : \

> The same goes for your charges of
>cluelessness and amorality.  If you look through your original message,
>you will find each implication, I promise.

Sure, but my point was that I took great care to make sure it wasn't
directed at an individual. If you are so adamant about being classified as
an SC, then claim it legally. Call your party the SC party. Form an
organization. Until then, SC will remain a set with zero members. According
to the rules at least.

>	I don't mean to be facetious, but if I should not interpret 
>anything you say as -meaning- anything in particular, why should I bother 
>to read it?

It was a satire. An attack on what I see as a failed and bankrupt ideology.
I won't mince my words there, sorry. But my last complaint was with the (if
may say so) self righteous indignation you cloaked yourself with. Hum.
Strong word there, but you did take it a little bit too personally. Guilty
conscience? Remorse? Paranoia?    : )

And just a last footnote. The passages you don't like are written by Ycnega.
Those you do (if any) are written by me, CnH.

CnH and Ycnega
Dream Team of Acka

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 02:18:26 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: [good] trash, ct'd

T Joffrain wrote:

> And while TMBG fans exist, there is no recognized entity or list of SCs.

I like TMBG. I shall be the proof of the above statement, and the Official
Assistant Acting They Might Be Giants Fan in chess piece face's absence.

If chess piece face is nuked as a TMBG fan while on vacation, by an
insensitive adjenda making its rounds, I shall confer what TMBG fanhood
I can on him upon his return.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:41:29 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: [good] trash, ct'd

"Some people like the group They Might Be Giants.  Those people are
>worthless, scummy, smelly, murderous puddles of camel bile."

I'm offended :)

If you don't leave my giants alone, I'm gonna sink Manhattan.

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
In fear of being burned as a heretic

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 12:12:28 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Worthless Currency

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, T Joffrain wrote:

> 
> Hum. I wonder if we pass through legislation of that kind.
> If the android rule passes, then I think we should have a rule that says
> each android can manufacture one "shop artifact" per week. So we could have
> a steady flow of t-shirts, coke, beers, whatever.
> 
> Once the industrial base is in place, shops are bound to start up.
> 
> CnH
> 
>
If we just 'manufacture' things out of thin air, then we are back at the
same place we were at before Treasury was created. Or, some would argue,
we would be at the other end of the spectrum, we'd a fixed amount of
money, and a growing number of 'stuff'. This would actually raise the
value of A$ (or the alleged ZooZ)

Nicolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 02:25:26 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream 

I am founding the "Church of the Markovian Dream"  Church membership is
open to all who accept it's dogma as the Truth.  I am the founder of the
church, and the followers are Malenkai, this is not a name, and Calvin N.
Hobbes.  For more information about the Church, or to become a follower,
please send me email.

The Church of the Markovian Dream has an internal church policy.  Policy
will remain private, and be distributed only to followers.

The Church Of the Markovian Dream shall have the following dogma:

The Prophet, in searching for the edge of the
Earth, discovered something. He did not find the edge
of the Earth, but did discover a Golden Frog. Upon
smiling at the Frog, it spoke thusly:

Diversity, creativity, free-thinking, and openness are
boons to Ackanomia, those qualities shall be sought out
and encouraged for the long life and fun of Acka and its
citizens.

Intolerance, elitism, de-humanization, and anal strict-constructionalism
are the banes, those anti-qualities shall be avoided and discouraged,
lest Acka begin to fester into a dark age.

No person, or group of people, is a "better" rule writer than
another. No person, or group of people, is suitably divine enough
to judge whether rule A, or revision thereof, is "better" than
rule B, or revision thereof; and any statement to the contrary
is heresy. Rules can only be measured by the fun that they engender,
and are measured differently by those who incur that fun.

"Rule-ripper" type rules truly promote efficiency. However, their cost
is greater than their benefits in that they are de-humanizing and
disrespectful to the Great Ones who founded the land. They
stifle individuality, creativity, and free-flowing prose in writing
new rules; for the fear that they instill, and the comments they
contain. They make the rules less fun, for they encourage no
discourse or debate of ideas.

The Golden Frog thus offered proof: "I submit for you the Gumball.
Called a useless or do-nothing rule by some heretics, it engendered
lively discussion, argument, and debate over its composition. It
even now, from its original form, founds a Church. But now that it
has been sterilized, however, it festers like dead weight, and no
longer engenders discussion or joy".

Intolerance and rudeness in the public, for anyone's work, is a bane,
for it discourages new talent from participating, and it makes the
land less enjoyable for the Old Ones. The people shall be free to create
and let the electorate judge their work; not fear rude, opressive,
comments.

The duty of one's office, and duty towards Calls for Judgement and
other calls made by Acka shall take precedence over one's personal or
group adgenda. The former benefits all of Acka, the latter only serves
ones self.

The concentration of many powerful offices, such as the Speaker,
Appointer, President, Inventor, and CSRR, in a single bloc, or
behind a single idealogy, promotes elitism and stifles diversity,
making Acka a less festive land. It is a boon to Acka that power
be spread amongst the diverse talents of its citizenry, and
opportunity be given to all idealogies to blossom in a particular
position.

Disrespect for the Great Old Founders of Acka is a bane, for a part
of your history, and soul, therein resides. The Great Ones shall take
leave from Acka from time to time, to pursue other matters that
can only enhance Acka upon their return. To force upon them actions,
that they would not take were they present, is a harmful disrepect
and gross injustice that instills fear into any citizen who aspires
to a position of greatness within Acka. Due to Acka's creativity and
diversity, when not repressed, it is possible to find other solutions
to the minor inconvienences caused by the Great One's sabatticals.

Acka, and this Church, is open to all lands an cultures. Barriers to
entry, such as removing the functions of the Welcomer and Publicist,
and overloading the newcomer with information, are a bane, for they
limit the flow of new talent and ideas. Acka should have high on its
adjenda creative solutions to these problems, lest it fester under its
own weight. It is a boon for citizens, instead of constantly pursuing
their own adjenda, to think how they can take some time to get new
citizens, or those less involved, more involved.

These facts are self-evident; it is not necessary to form political
organisations to promote them or to gain advantage in promoting
them. It is not necessary for those who see the Truth of these facts
to aspire to powerful places; but those that do, see it only as a means
to serve Acka better, and make it more festive for all. These facts
transcend Acka, but Acka will be a more enjoyable and festive land when
their Truth is universally recognized.

Thus Spoke the Golden Frog

- ------------------
Please note: Though Rule 775/1 requires the speaker to announce the
existance of a church,  I am sending this message to the public forum
becuase I do not know who the current speaker is.  I assume it is either
Bascule or Malenkai.  Would the appropraite person please make this
official.

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
In fear of being burned as a heretic

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:54:35 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream

> ------------------
> Please note: Though Rule 775/1 requires the speaker to announce the
> existance of a church,  I am sending this message to the public forum
> becuase I do not know who the current speaker is.  I assume it is either
> Bascule or Malenkai.  Would the appropraite person please make this
> official.
> 

I believe the current speaker is Mohammed. I can act in the role in his
absence, and I have not heard from him in about 12 hours :). Of course,
Aunt Millie could take the job too, and no-one could CFCJ it. 

I shall take the job shortly, in an acting capacity, if Mohammed's
absence continues :)) (Thats why they give the CotC this power, so he
or she can do something else when the justice system is shut down, to
justify the government spending).

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:35:11 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Amber Banana 

Techno wrote:
>I acknowledge that Malenkai has purchased an Amber Banana and eaten it. I 
>will vote yes on 894.

I take this as agreement to the transaction, and hereby verify the transaction.

ThinMan
Financier

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:02:40 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Unintended Consequences of R829 

this is not a name wrote:
>Malenkai wrote:
>>The CotC is now closed. Please send CFJs, but they will be buffered,
>>pending R829.
>
>This means that there is no way to CFJ on things relating to the process 
>of paradox, Constitutional Convention, etc.
>
>ThinMan, did you intend this? How can this be fixed?

I intended this, more or less.  R219 explicitly makes provisions for attempts
to overrule the judgement of a Paradox win, so once R 829 is legally invoked,
the question of the occurence of a Paradox win must be settled.  If you have
a problem with the way the Convention is handled, the you will have to wait
until the next cycle begins to CFJ.  Nothing prevents CFJs from having
retroactive effects, so I do not see this as a major problem.

If anyone has alternative suggestions for handling Paradox wins, then by
all means, speak.  I do not claim that R829 is any masterpiece.

ThinMan

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:19:04 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream 

snowgod wrote:
>Please note: Though Rule 775/1 requires the speaker to announce the
>existance of a church,  I am sending this message to the public forum
>becuase I do not know who the current speaker is.  I assume it is either
>Bascule or Malenkai.  Would the appropraite person please make this
>official.

The current Speaker is Mohammed, actually.  This information can be found
on the web page, on the list of Players.

By the way, now that it comes up, a good addition to the page might be a
listing of the offices and the Players that currently fill each one.  Yes,
it would be somewhat redundant with the Player's list, but the two would
be used for different purposes.

ThinMan

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:47:30 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Digest V1 #50 

>	"Well written" means having all the following qualities:  a single
>meaning, brevity, proper spelling and grammar, and a good
>industrial/techno beat (optional but it helps.)

Nope. "Well written" means, "that will produce fun".
This is a _game_ remember?

>	"Useful" means having some game effect which is either well
>integrated with the rest of the game, or very intereseting.  [Contrast: 
>Vacation (integral), Eleusis RFC (interesting), and Party Hall (neither.)]
>A useless rule is easy to spot because it is marginal to the rest of the
>game.
* etc. etc. *

Gonna toss my $.02 in here at the risk of getting caught up in the flames:

Nomic is a game.

games should be fun.

However, people's ideas of what is fun vary. In nomic, people get to argue
and propose various changes to the game according to what they
(respectively) think would make a fun game.

Personally, I think neither rampant pure silliness nor lots of organization
without anything fun to do within a game (*ahem* Agora) are fun. We need a
compromise, not shitloads of futile arguments back and forth. (and of course
there are arguments of the non-futile variety)

Good rules are fun rules. Fun is entirely subjective, and therefore Good is
also.

</SOAPBOX>

- ---Pascal
- ----------------------------------------------------------
$_=$a='$_=$a=\'f\';s/([\\\\\'])/\\\\\\1/g;$a=~s/f/$_/;print
$a';s/([\\'])/\\\1/g;$a=~s/f/$_/;print $a
- ----------------------------------------------------------
(A self-printing perl script, if you happen to care. If,
however, you don't care, that's still what it is...)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:23:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re Pascal's 2 cents

Pascal wrote:
> Gonna toss my $.02 in here at the risk of getting caught up in the flames:
>
> Nomic is a game.
>
> games should be fun.

I agree with this.

> However, people's ideas of what is fun vary. In nomic, people get to argue
> and propose various changes to the game according to what they
> (respectively) think would make a fun game.

However, I don't find it fun to have 15 different offices, each of which
have their own rules for being filled, elections for office where the
votes for different offices are sent to two or three different players,
and 5 other rules which take precedence over the other parts of the rules.
It's necessary (im my opinion) for the rules governing offices to be simple
because offices are too important to the running of the game.  Thus, the
'rule ripper' proposals.

> Personally, I think neither rampant pure silliness nor lots of organization
> without anything fun to do within a game (*ahem* Agora) are fun. We need a
> compromise, not shitloads of futile arguments back and forth. (and of course
> there are arguments of the non-futile variety)

I will have to agree here. 

I still think that the Voting Gnome rule cannot remain as it currently 
stands, just because we don't necessarily know the scores at every moment,
so it can be a difficult rule to carry out.  As a compromise, I present
this RFC:

Amend rule 355 to read:
 There exists an entity called the Voting Gnome.  The Voting Gnome may cast
 one vote on every proposal.  This rule takes precedence over rule 390.
 The Voting Gnome is controlled by the Gnome Buddy.  The Gnome Buddy may
 choose how the Voting Gnome votes on each proposal up for vote while he
 has the title.  The Gnome Buddy may change the Voting Gnome's vote on
 any proposal still up for vote, analogous to the way a player may change
 his vote.

 Every time a proposal with a number that is a multiple of 10 completes its
 voting period, the player who submitted the last proposal which passed
 becomes the Gnome Buddy and holds this title until another player gets it.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:35:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Return of the Rule Ripper, revised

RFC: The Return of the Rule Ripper

[[Summary:  This proposal looks to standardize the office creation rules.
  A few rules are repealed -- Rule 579, and the 'starting lists'
  of offices.  Then there are a few general fixes, and a few small changes
  in the general office rules.  Finally, the other Office rules are amended.]]

1. Repeal rule 579 'There can be Only One'.
  [[The name was cool, but the rule was superfluous.  Rule 703 takes care
    of this:

 "There can only be a maximum of one of each of the following things, whether
  they exist or not:
  Speaker
  President
  Official currency
  Financial Market
  Financier

  Neither can there ever be two jobs with the same name."]]

2. Repeal R608, 'Offices, Starting List of'.

  [[ As proposal 834 stated, we won't need it any more with the other changes
  it made, but it first had to be transmuted to mutable.  This was the text:

"(i)   Offices:
      Each of the following Ackanomic entities, if it
      exists, is considered to be an Office:
      President, Senator, Justice, Financier, Promoter, Clerk
      of the Court, Publicist, Tabulator, Web-Harfer,
      Registrar, Pollster, Scorekeeper.
      Other entities may be Offices if so specified by the
      Rules.

"(ii)  Functional Offices:
      Each of the following Ackanomic entities, if it
      exists, is considered to be a Functional Office:
      Promoter, Clerk of the Court, Publicist, Tabulator,
      Web-Harfer, Registrar, Pollster, Scorekeeper.
      Other entities may be Functional Offices if so specified
      by the Rules."]]

3. Repeal R576 'Political Offices, Starting List'.

   [[We won't need it any more after the other changes in this proposal.
   The rule says:

   "(i)  The following Offices are Political Offices:
   President, Senator, Justice.
   (ii) No other Office is to be considered a Political Office
   unless explicitly specified as such by the Rules."]]

4. Amend Rule 110 'Winning the Game' by deleting the last sentence, which
    reads:
   "The winner of the last game shall become the new Speaker for the next
    game, assuming all current duties allocated to the Speaker."

5. Amend Rule 452 'Rule Titles' by changing the last sentence from:
   "Once a Rule has a Title, the only way that the Rule may have its Title
    changed is if a Proposal is passed which changes the Title."
   to:
   "The title of a rule may only be changed when a rule change amends
    the rule, or when a rule changes the title."
 
  [[This ensures that Rule 703 works, which is slightly unclear now.]]

6. Amend R636, 'Definitions', as follows:
     Delete the line: "Standard Election Period: 5 days"
     [[ This differs from R611, so I'm deleting it to avoid confusion. ]]

7. Amend Rule 648 'Confirmation Procedure' as follows:
    a. Delete the second paragraph:
       "Should a Senator be on Vacation during the Standard Confirmation
        Period, the Period will be extended 3 days beyond the time the
        Senator returns, if such an extension would lengthen the Period."

   [[If a senator is on vacation, too bad; we can't wait around for
     years for him to return.  Besides, we can now make acting senators
     to do the job.]]

    b. Delete the last paragraph:
       "If the term Standard Confirmation Period is undefined elsewhere in
        the rules, it will be defined here as 7 days."

   [[It is defined elsewhere.]]

8. Amend R611, 'Offices, Related Definitions', by changing section (ii) c)
   from:
        "If there is no Election Period specified for the
         Election, the default Period is 72 hours."
   to:
        "Elections last 72 hours from the time the appropriate officer
         announces he is starting to accept votes."

9. Amend R612, 'Functional Offices, Commonalities' as follows:
   Change the first sentence from 
       "This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules." 
   to:
       "This rule takes precedence over rule 609."

   [[ Eliminating a blanket precedence clause; we won't need it after
      this proposal, and this will allow elected functional offices
      (like Gaoler already claims to be). ]]

   Change section (ii) a)  from:
       '1 unit plus .25 units for every Office held.'
   to:
       '3 units plus 1 unit for every Office held.'

   [[ This should remove all mention of fractional ackadollar amounts from
      the rules. ]]

10. Amend R609, 'Offices, Commonalities', by adding this new section at
    the end:
    "(viii) Political and Functional Offices
        Political Offices and Functional Offices are Offices."

11. Amend rule 414 'The Office of the Tabulator' to read:
  "The Office of the Tabulator is a Functional Office.  The Duties of
   the Tabulator are:

  "(a) to receive and to count votes on each proposal.
  "(b) to maintain the voting records of each player on each proposal.
  "(c) to report the acceptance or rejection of each proposal.

  "If the rules require any other vote and don't otherwise specify who
   should conduct the vote, the Tabulator shall conduct the vote and have
   the same duties for that vote as are listed above for proposals."

  [[I added the last part to clear up any confusion about elections, and
    added "to receive" in part (a).  This will further standardize 
    elections.]]

12. Amend R607, 'File Clerk, Creation of', by changing
    "a filing fee of .30 units"  to  "a filing fee of 2 units"
   in part (iv) b)

   [[ This should remove all mention of fractional ackadollar amounts from
      the rules. ]]

13. Amend R504 'The President of Ackanomia' by changing the first sentence
    from:  "The Presidency of Ackanomia is an Office with one Seat."
    to  "The Presidency of Ackanomia is a Political Office with one Seat."

14. Amend R478 'Creation of a Senate' by changing:
     "The Senate is an Office with four Seats"
    to:
     "The Senate is a Political Office with four Seats"

   [[ I would like to keep the concept of political offices around. ]]

15. Amend R507 'The Supreme Court of Ackanomia' to read:
   "The Supreme Court is a Political Office with two seats.  The players
   who hold these seats are called Justices.  The President, Speaker, and
   Senators may not be Justices.  Justices are appointed by the President
   and confirmed by the Senate. Should the Senate not agree on a candidate,
   then the President must propose another person until the Senate agrees
   or the Senate has already rejected three candidates.

16. Amend Rule 396 'Office of Promoter' to read, in full:
  "There is a functional office called the Promoter.
   A proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the
   Promoter. As soon as possible after receiving the proposal, 
   the Promoter shall assign the proposal a number and distribute
   it to the players for voting."

[[ Somehow this was missed in the first Ride of the Rule Ripper.
   R396 now says:
"Let there be officer called the Promoter. The Promoter would
be selected on a volunteer basis.  In the case of multiple 
volunteers, the Speaker will choose by random selection.
In the event of there being no volunteers for the office of
Promoter, the duties of the Promoter are to be carried out
by the Speaker.

A proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the
Promoter. As soon as poosible after receiving the proposal, 
the Promoter shall assign the proposal a number and distibute
it to the players for voting." 
]]

17. Amend Rule 482 "Creation of the Office of the Financier and Free Market"
   to read in full:

"There is an office called the Financier, to be filled by election.
 There is also an office called Assistant Financier, with two seats.
 The Financier may choose or dismiss Assistant Financiers as desired.
 There shall never be Acting Assistant Financiers.  This takes precedence
 over any other mutable rule which specifies methods for filling offices.

"The Financier and Assistant Financiers are collectively called the Office
 of the Financier (OotF).  The Financier may delegate his powers to the
 assistants as he desires, but he is still ultimately responsible for his
 duties.

"A duty of the Financier shall be to keep track of the accounts (bonds,
 currencies, etc.) of the players.

"An entity called the Free Market (FM) exists.  It is a bulletin board where
 anyone may post requests for transactions, to buy, sell, or exchange assets.
 The FM is suspended at any time there is not a Financier, and exists
 starting on the first Monday after a new Financier is picked.

"When players have agreed to a transaction, they should report it to the
 Financier.  When the Financier has verified that the transaction is legal,
 it becomes official and the appropriate records shall be updated.
 A transaction is only legal if it is specifically permitted by a rule."

[[ Current text of 482:

"A new entity will be created called the Office of the Financier (OotF). This
head of the OotF will be called the Financier, and will have up to two
assistants which he/she will choose and dismiss as desired. The assistants
are official representatives of the Financier and members of the OotF. They
have the same powers as the Financier himself, except his is the final
authority. They may resign their position.

"The position of Financier shall be filled by candidates volunteering for the
job. Should there be more than one candidate for the position, a vote will
have to be taken by the Players or by another entity given that task as part
of its charter, electing the candidate with the most votes. In
case of a tie, the Speaker will randomly select one of the tied candidates.

"A new entity called the Free Market (FM) will be created. It will be the
only legal place for transactions to take place. The FM will exist in the
form of a bulletin board where anyone may post requests for transactions, to
buy, sell or exchange assets. The FM will begin to exist on the first Monday
after the Financier has been picked. If there is no longer a Financier, then
the FM will be suspended until another is found.

"When a player is interested by a transaction, then he/she should sort out
the deal with the player who posted it directly. Once the details of the
transactions have been worked out, they must report it to the Financier.
Once the Financier has verified the transaction was legal according to rules
regulating such transactions, then it will be come official, become
effective and a record will be kept. If the transaction is not specifically
permitted by a rule, then it is illegal. The Financier is responsible for
the proper maintenance of the accounts of the players, (bonds, currencies,
whatever...), whether or not that task is delegated to someone or some other
entity.

"The Financier will be directly responsible for the upkeep of the FM. He/she
may delegate any work to assistants, but is still ultimately responsible for
it. The financier is also responsible for making sure the records of every
transaction are publicly available.

"The Financier is responsible for overseeing the lawful functioning of any
entity that deals on, is related to, uses the FM, when using the FM. This
includes the authority to negotiate and resolve conflicts or disagreements
between such entities according to the rules, tradition, or to the best of
his/her judgement, in that order.

"The Financier is publicly accountable and can be voted out of office by two
thirds of the votes of the Players. The Financier may also resign. The
Financier will report directly to the Players concerning his handling of the
job, especially on matter concerning his decisions in resolving disagreements.
Should any player disagree with the Financier's decision, he/she may call a
CFJ to impeach the Financier on that matter until it is dropped or a rule is
passed clearing up the situation."
]]

18. Amend Rule 621, "Historian, Creation of" as follows:

    Replace the first four sections:

    "1) The office of the Historian is hereby created. There will
     be one seat for this office.

    "2) Upon vacancy of the office, it will be filled on a volunteer basis.
     Upon multiple volunteers, the Speaker will choose one [preferably one
     with access to a web server]. In the event that no volunteers come
     forth, the office will remain vacant and its duties unfulfilled.

    "3) Salary: The Historian will draw a salary as appropriate for a
     Functional Office. Should this term be undefined or its salary be
     undefined, the salary will be 0.

    "4) Term: The Historian will hold the office until he or she resigns
     or until he or she is Impeached."

    with:

    "1) There shall be a functional office called Historian.  There shall
     never be an Acting Historian.  This takes precedence over all other
     rules for filling offices."

    And change the beginning of the last section from  "5) Duties:" 
    to  "2) Duties:"

19. Amend R695 "Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy"
   to read, in full:

  "(a) There shall be a functional office called Common Sense, Redundancy,
       and Redundancy.  This office may be referred to as CSRR.
   (b) A privilege of the CSRR is publishing Common Sense Reports.
       A common sense report (CSR) is a suggested change to the rules.
       A CSR is not a proposal.  The changes suggested in a CSR may
       only consist of amending and repealing mutable rules.
   (c) The CSRR shall distribute CSR's publicly, and assign each one a
       unique number.  After a CSR is distributed, any player may
       officially object to it by publishing his objection publicly.
       If no player objects to the CSR within the Prescribed Voting
       Period after it has been distributed, then at the end of that
       time, the changes it suggests will be made.  The CSRR shall
       publish a notice that the changes have been made."

[[ In addition to cutting out a lot of junk, this changes "Official Voting
Period" to "Prescribed Voting Period", a term which is actually defined in
the rules.

The old text was:
"  (a) The Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy shall exist.
This office may be referred to as CSRR.
   (b) The purpose of the Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy
is to make changes to the rules when it finds that the rules, as written, do
not make sense, are redundant, do not conform _in fact_ to their
interpretation in game custom, or are redundant.  The Office may perform
other functions if they conform to the rules.  [The Office should make minor
changes.  But if it can get major changes past the, shall we say, review
process, it can.]
   (c) CSRR shall be a Functional Office with one seat.
   (d) (1) The CSRR Officer may publish suggested changes to the rules.  Such
a publication may be referred to as a "Common Sense Report" or "CSR."  The
CSRR Officer shall assign a unique number for reference purposes to each CSR
he publishes.
       (2) Changes to the rules suggested by a CSR shall be limited to
modifying an existing rule or repealing an existing rule.  A CSR may not
propose the modification or repeal of immutable rules.
   (e) (1) If any player objects to the changes in the CSR within the Official
Voting Period, he shall publish his objection.  The changes proposed by the
CSR shall not be made.  This subsection shall not prevent any formal
proposal from being made.  [In other words, even if there are objections to
the CSR, the CSRR Officer, or anyone else, can still propose it as a formal
rule proposal.]
       (2) If no player objects to the changes in the CSR within the
Official Voting Period, the changes proposed in the CSR shall be made.  The
CSRR Officer shall publish a notice that the changes have been made.  All
Officers responsible for modifying any official rule set(s) [e.g., the
Web-Harfer] shall modify such rule set(s) upon receipt of such publication."
]]

20. Amend rule 712, 'Gaoler, Creation of'.
   Change section (ii) from:
     "There shall be one seat for this office. This seat is filled by
      election."
   to:
     "There shall be one seat for this office. This seat is filled by
      election.  This rule takes precedence over rule 612."

21. Amend rule 832, 'Postmaster, Creation of', as follows:
   Change the first paragraph from:
     "There shall be a functional office called the Postmaster, with one seat.
      The office of Postmaster shall be filled by a volunteer.  If there is no
      volunteer, and at any time in which the office of Postmaster is vacant,
      there shall be no Acting Postmaster.  This rule takes precedence over the
      rules "Offices, Commonalities" and "Functional Offices, Commonalities"
      with respect to Acting Officers."
   to:
     "There shall be a functional office called the Postmaster.
      There shall never be an Acting Postmaster.
      This rule takes precedence over rule 612."
   And delete the last sentence:
     "The Postmaster shall receive the usual salary for a Functional Office."

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #51
******************************